Can a Catholic Still Maintain the Death Penalty?

[TMC]

Any element which is prudential. Documents should not be confused with doctrine.

But how does one tell what is “prudential” (other than by asking you)? The Catechism is the sure norm for teaching the faith, and it does not indicate that the teaching on the death penalty is prudential. It treats it like all other teachings.

 

[Rau]

If you are correct that this teaching is not obligatory because the Church once taught differently, then you must believe that Church doctrine cannot develop - or at least that such developments are optional. What is the other possibility?

No - your conclusion is wrong. Developments maintain consistency - they do not repudiate or reverse what was doctrine expressed previously. Judgements about the better choice “these days” are not doctrine.

It’s interesting to take stock of the main arguments on this thread;

1. The church has “developed” the CP doctrine to a point where it contradicts prior doctrine;
2. The church is teaching something applicable to the present times - and Catholics are obligated to accept it (or at least not express a contrary view);
3. The church argues strenuously that CP is inappropriate these days which is a prudential judgement. It can only be a prudential judgement because the church does not put forth doctrine that contradicts prior doctrine.

 

[Rau]

But how does one tell what is “prudential”

One recognizes that doctrine cannot contradict doctrine.

 

[TMC]

No - your conclusion is wrong. Developments maintain consistency - they do not repudiate or reverse what was doctrine expressed previously. Judgements about the better choice “these days” are not doctrine.

Who gets to decide what is “consistent”? Is it Rau? Or is it the Church? I don’t find it inconsistent at all. The Church has always taught that killing people was wrong, except with some narrow exceptions. The Church has changed its teaching as to this one exception. That is not inconsistent with the Church’s long held teaching on taking the lives of others.

It is odd for me to hear it said that this development is too large or too momentous or too jarring to be an authentic development of doctrine. There have been other changes, even in recent times, that are larger, more momentous and more jarring than this one. But those are accepted as authentic developments. I believe this one will be as well.

 

[TMC]

One recognizes that doctrine cannot contradict doctrine.

And who is “one”? The Pope does not think this doctrine contradicts doctrine, nor do the bishops. Are they not those who are charged with making that determination, and given the authority to do so?

 

[Ender]

Rau:

One recognizes that doctrine cannot contradict doctrine.

And who is “one”?

One church doctrine cannot cannot contradict another; that’s a non-starter. Nor in legitimate development can a new doctrine contradict an older one. Contradiction is not development.

The Pope does not think this doctrine contradicts doctrine, nor do the bishops.

The question of whether this is in fact new doctrine remains to be settled. If this is new doctrine, and is understood to be “States do not have the moral right to use capital punishment” it would repudiate the Traditional teaching that “States have the moral right to use capital punishment”. It’s not clear how this could not be considered a contradiction, and if the new doctrine is not a contradiction then it’s not clear what it means.

 

[TMC]

The question of whether this is in fact new doctrine remains to be settled.

By whom? It is in the Catechism, which is the sure norm for teaching the Faith. It is not some random comment by the Pope in presser. Those that oppose the Church’s teaching on the death penalty are acting like this was just a thought tossed out by the Pope. Its not. It is Catholic teaching.

 

[Ender]

By whom? It is in the Catechism, which is the sure norm for teaching the Faith. It is not some random comment by the Pope in presser. Those that oppose the Church’s teaching on the death penalty are acting like this was just a thought tossed out by the Pope. Its not. It is Catholic teaching.

OK, let’s suppose it is doctrinal. What exactly does it mean? Is it this: “States do not have the moral right to use capital punishment?”

 

[TMC]

OK, let’s suppose it is doctrinal. What exactly does it mean? Is it this: “ States do not have the moral right to use capital punishment? ”

It means what it says. That said, while I would not use those words, your restatement is more or less accurate.

 

[Ender]

…while I would not use those words, your restatement is more or less accurate.

OK, so it means (more or less) that “States do not have the moral right to use capital punishment.”

This is what it used to say (1997 version): 2267 “The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude…recourse to the death penalty, when.…”

The traditional teaching did not exclude the death penalty, the new teaching does, thus the teaching has been reversed. What was true before is false now. Is there any other way to understand this development?

 

[TMC]

The traditional teaching did not exclude the death penalty, the new teaching does, thus the teaching has been reversed. What was true before is false now. Is there any other way to understand this development?

Yes. I would not agree it is a “reversal.” It is a development of the doctrine on the killing of persons. The Church has always taught that killing is wrong, but allowed certain exceptions. The death penalty was once such an exception, and is no longer.

If your only concern is that the doctrine has changed, are you saying that doctrine cannot change? You are aware that lots of Church doctrines have changed (or “developed” if that is preferred)?

 

[Ender]

I would not agree it is a “reversal.”

What was valid before is invalid now. How can that be anything other than a reversal?

If your only concern is that the doctrine has changed, are you saying that doctrine cannot change? You are aware that lots of Church doctrines have changed (or “developed” if that is preferred)?

“Change” does not capture what’s going on here as you recognize, otherwise you would acknowledge the obvious fact that the doctrine now is the opposite of what it was before. If you’re not concerned about this change why not recognize what is plainly true? What was allowed before is forbidden now.

 

[TMC]

What was valid before is invalid now. How can that be anything other than a reversal?

Reversal is your term. How does that choice of semantics affect the legitimacy of the teaching?

“ Change ” does not capture what’s going on here as you recognize, otherwise you would acknowledge the obvious fact that the doctrine now is the opposite of what it was before. If you’re not concerned about this change why not recognize what is plainly true? What was allowed before is forbidden now.

No, it is a change that is akin to previous changes to Church teaching. Unless it is your position that Church teaching must match the teaching of 500 AD, or 1000 AD, or even 1700 AD, then it makes no sense to reject this teaching on that basis.

 

[Ender]

Reversal is your term. How does that choice of semantics affect the legitimacy of the teaching?

It is not a mere question of semantics; it goes to the real nature of this “change”, which I suspect you realize or you wouldn’t be so reluctant to admit the obvious. Most people are willing to recognize that if you are forbidden to do today what you were permitted to do yesterday, this is a reversal of the law.

The problem with this “change” as you understand it is that it would mean the church was wrong on this matter and the heretics were right, because the claim that Christian societies could not legitimately apply capital punishment was in fact rejected as a heresy. What was heresy before has become doctrine now…if you are right. I see that as a bit of a problem.

 

[TMC]

It is not a mere question of semantics; it goes to the real nature of this “ change ”, which I suspect you realize or you wouldn’t be so reluctant to admit the obvious. Most people are willing to recognize that if you are forbidden to do today what you were permitted to do yesterday, this is a reversal of the law.

The problem with this “change” as you understand it is that it would mean the church was wrong on this matter and the heretics were right, because the claim that Christian societies could not legitimately apply capital punishment was in fact rejected as a heresy. What was heresy before has become doctrine now…if you are right. I see that as a bit of a problem.

You assume a lot about my mental state, which maybe says something about yours.

If you were correct, then the “heretics” would have been “right” hundreds of years ago, or even thousands, when the Church first made any change to doctrine.

I notice you have carefully avoided addressing the issue of previous changes to doctrine, many of which were both larger and more momentous than this one.

 

[Rau]

The death penalty was once such an exception, and is no longer.

Or is it more accurate to say that it NEVER was a real exception?

 

[Motherwit]

TMC:

The death penalty was once such an exception, and is no longer.

Or is it more accurate to say that it NEVER was a real exception?

It was only ever justified by it’s service to the common good. If it doesn’t serve the common good it is always forbidden. It was ever thus implicitly in the past, explicitly now.

 

[Motherwit]

False, that was not the only justification for it. Justice was another used by church.
[/quote]

Human justice overall has it’s end in the common good.

Aquinas - “…legal justice is a special virtue in respect of its essence, in so far as it regards the common good as its proper object” ( ST IIaIIae 58.6).

“Whatever is for an end should be proportionate to that end. Now the end of law is the common good.” (ST I II 96.1)

The death penalty is a sentence in legal justice and as such must serve the common good to be justified.

 

[Motherwit]

I’m pretty sure what I said was that it wasn’t the purpose.

The Church also teachings (and taught) that it is also for punishment.
[/quote]

And punishment is a matter of legal justice and must serve the common good to be justified.

 

[Motherwit]

Which only the local judge and people can decide, as a prudential matter.
[/quote]

Historically the Church only addresses the issue of the death penalty to correct flawed arguments at the time either for or against its use, because of the moral implications.